Obvious point. The question is, who is more likely to do so? I think DJ's man is, sad to say.

On the other hand, Fred coulda been a contenda.

This is one of the most mature things you have written in a while. I have listened to people saying that if McCain wins, it will be as bad as Obama or Clinton winning and so let the democrats take the hit. I understand the sentiment, don't agree with the political wisdom of that and feel that even if right such thinking is putting the good of the party before the good of the country. Those should not be seperate things.

Look at McCain, Obama and Clinton's votes on Alito and Roberts and tell me that it wouldn't matter which is president. This election could well decide if we add another Alito and/or Roberts to the court or do we add another Ginsburg and/or Breyer.

Look at McCain, Obama and Clinton's votes on running away in Iraq and tell me that it wouldn't matter who is president. This election could decide if we return to a US that responds to terrorism the way we did after the first WTC bombing or the USS Cole, or do we continue to actively fight against terrorists and the regimes that support them.

There are absolutely issues that I disagree with McCain on. Substantive issues that can have a real impact on this country (though it is questionable if they would have as big of impact as 2 more solid constitutionalist judges on the supreme court or surrendering to the terrorist). But when I go down that list of substantive issues, I don't see that I would agree with how Obama or Clinton would address those issues. There, I would look for a solid core of republican senators who could block bad laws on those issues from a president of either party.

My first choice will not be president ... period. I have to accept that. I can't cry about what could have been. I have to make a rational examination of who still can be president. Then make the best choice for the country. What I won't do is let my personal dislike for someone drive me to hurt the country as part of a temper tantrum or to make a stand on issues that I wasn't able to persuade my fellow republicans on. On those issues, I will re-examine if it was the messanger or the message that failed to persuade and work towards the next election cycle.

Well said, y.a.j.

"that no matter how much America needs a Republican President"

DJ, I'm about as much of a partisan Republican and Bush supporter as anyone at Wizbang, and I am proud of being so. However, even I can understand that America can easily tell the GOP to go to hell in such a manner that the GOP looks forward to the trip, if the GOP has that overall attitude.

America does not need, or even want, a Republican president. We have to show America why one is important to the future of the country. It's all in the sales pitch. And let's stop persisting in this notion that Rush, Sean, Laura, Hugh, and a few other radio talk show hosts are in the business to help in this sales pitch.

Given the alternative, Brad, America does need a Republican in the White House.

It's not as if we have a choice anymore.

Brad,

I agree with you that America doesn't "need" a republican president. What we need is the best president from among those who have a realistic chance of winning. We don't get to choose between an ideal and reality, but just within reality. And the reality is that Obama or Clinton will do a lot more damage to the country than any republican still running.

Well spoken, DJ. (also well spoken, yetanotherjohn)

I think that during this (exremely long) primary season, we/I have been treated to plenty of negativity about all the candidates. I am having to remind myself that even if McCain is the (R) candidate, he will be strong on some issues that I agree with- and that the other choice (Obama/Clinton) will be bad for the country.

The sad news for me, is that my state's primary (MS) falls in early March, and the contest will most likely be decided at that point.

I have developed a distaste for the way we do primaries here in the US. I don't feel well represented- thanks to open primaries and caucases in a few states, my preferred candidate is already out. (As is my 2nd choice... etc.) I know it would never happen, but how about the idea of a natn'l primary? Still held on the state level, but every state holding its primary within, say, 2 weeks?

I know it would never happen, but how about the idea of a natn'l primary? Still held on the state level, but every state holding its primary within, say, 2 weeks?

That makes some good sense to me. The way we have it now, a few states basically decide where things are going, and then the rest pick from the shrapnel. I understand the fact that the candidates need to go to all these states, but it seems to me that he actual voting could occur AFTER all the campaigning so that every state gets an equal voice in the matter.

Very sober assessments, both DJ and yaj. If only all the nomination conversations could have been so sober. But it hasn't and there has been a consistent theme to the party loyalty argument. It is one of the reasons that many are determined to hold fast and vote, or not vote at all, according to their principles. Many of the party loyalty arguments, most strongly at the big libertarian blogs, were preceded (for years) and are now accompanied by derisive attacks on Christians and their beliefs. The same websites that produce, or approvingly link to articles that sneeringly mock Christian symbols and beliefs, are often the same websites that are telling Christians to take what they can get (and vote Big R), which is more of the same treatment if they do so.
Which brings up a second point. A HUGE block of Christian, especially Catholic, voters in America are natural democrats. They changed over to the Republican Party after they saw a shift in the Democratic Party toward increasing villification of themselves and their beliefs. Christians don't object in principle to paying higher taxes if it is to assist those less fortunate. Many of the Democrat's principles are their principles.
In the end, why pay off the anti-Christian/libertarian wing of the Republican Party with an anti-Christian victory. The Dems might be worse in that regard, but they are better (if inept in administering) at advocating for the poor.

Posted by:

I haven't posted for quite some time but here's my take....

I REFUSE to allow the big-money Washington insiders to steal this election (and I don't care if they are big-government liberals or big-business liberals (of either party).

WHAT THE 527's DID WAS TOTALLY UNETHICAL and INEXCUSABLE. THEREFORE, in November - I will vote for Mike Huckabee NO MATTER WHO the Washington insiders choose....

onlyhuckabee.com

The Republican Party has been destroyed (or at least severely maimed) by so-called conservatives who are anything but. Rallying around whatever "anyone but the Democrat" candidate you end up with will not help, as independents and true conservatives now see through the charade.

Funniest video I've seen all week. If you can't see why, you are the one of those destroying your party.

1976.

1992.

Remember those elections, Mantis. Please remember the results from them.

Mantis,

I can understand your argument. In 2004, I felt that the Dems were running an "anyone but Bush" candidate that ultimately failed for them (while still gathering quite a number of votes).

That's what gives me a little bit of a sick feeling this year- I'm not as actively voting FOR my favorite candidate, I'm left picking who I DISlike the least- the "at least he's better than candidate x" candidate.

I remember them, and not with the rose-colored glasses most "conservatives" look back on the last seven through. The American people are sick of your shit.

I would prefer a more balanced government, with the two parties sharing power (things went reasonably well under that arrangement for six of the Clinton years), but all you "conservatives" went ahead and turned the Republican Party into a disgusting mockery, so it's best if you have no power for awhile until you can rejoin the civilized world.

You reap what you sow.

Mantis can't simply be honest. He is openly supporting the shit from the Dem sewage. The Dems are in the liberal sewage wrt the civilized world, yet Mantis has no qualm supporting Obama for example. Wish he could be more honest, unfortunately.

BTW, the Rep primary is what it should be, it is about difference about ideas. It is an example of real diversity and democracy where people fought about cherished ideas and convictions.

Look at the dem party, no diversity at all. It is mainly about identity, race, and class warfare. Lieberman is kicked out of the party for disagreeing with them on one single issue. Lieberman didn't even try the McCain style of insulting the base repeatedly for example. In fact, outside of the GWOT, Lieberman is a full fledged liberal. The left is running like a communist party which allows no disagreement. That 's the garbage with Mantis would rather choose. I would be ashamed to be a liberal today.

Spite is illogical, sir.

Will you listen to PresidentReagan on this?

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.

"Compromise was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

(ht Anchoress, http://theanchoressonline.com/category/dont-try-me-too-high/ )

LAI,

Do you read Right Wing News? Here's John Hawkins' "thought of the day."

Have you ever noticed how similar the liberal views of change and diversity are?

The liberal view of "diversity" is a black guy, a white guy, and a woman all espousing the same ultra-liberal ideas as they run for the Presidency.

On the other hand, the liberal view of "change" is a young, black guy espousing the same ultra-liberal ideas that old, white guys like Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and John Kerry have been pushing for years.

Pretty much sums it up, don't you think?

I too am severly disappointed in the race so far. It is so obvious that the media is championing McCain. I do not care for McCain but if he is the republican nominee, I will support him and when he becomes president I will support him. I considered not voting just to "show them" how disappointed I was until I realized I was hurting them, I was hurting my country. ww

I see, Mantis. so, people who will vote for your candidate if he persuades them but whose candidate you reject because he is not a "true conservative", are a "disgusting mockery" to you, and somehow less acceptable than President Carter's policies and appointments, President Clinton's policies, and appointments, and a Democrat-controlled Congress?

No, the Republican Party has become a disgusting mockery, mostly because they don't give a shit about conservatism, social, financial, or international, and thus have abandoned their supporters (some, but not all, of this has to do with their steadfast support and hero worship of the anti-conservative president currently in the White House).

The fact that the fevered egos on the web and talk radio have rallied around a candidate who has done a complete 180 on many core conservative issues, pretending and proclaiming loudly that he is the "true conservative" and McCain is nothing but a liberal (with some notably sane exceptions-Joyner, for one), is a big sign that your party is dying.

And your Reagan quote goes directly to my point. If you believed what he said you would not support the opportunist from Massachusetts who is so clearly full of shit to normal people but feeds the fake conservatives the right lies--er, lines. Romney is Reagan? What a joke.

And I never said anything about voting for "my" candidate.

And I never said anything about voting for "my" candidate.
----------------------------------
Since you cannot be honest about who you are and what you really believe just like Hillary and Obama.

Republican primary is a battle of ideas now. Only the ignorant and dishonest would not see that. The rest of your stuff is the usual cheap spin that has been dealt with before.

Any honest liberal with a good conscience would not vote for the Dem party, especially Hillary and Obama given what we know about them.

"(some, but not all, of this has to do with their steadfast support and hero worship of the anti-conservative president currently in the White House)."

Mantis, you are aware that the "anti-conservative" Bush did win TWO terms, right? And you are aware that anything more than one term (with the possible exception of LBJ) as president implies that Bush was a somewhat successful president, right?

You can call it hero-worship, if you'd like, we just recognize a successful and steadfast president when we see one. Just as history will see one.

Mantis cites: "I see, Mantis. so, people who will vote for your candidate if he persuades them but whose candidate you reject because he is not a ..."

Small point, but there must be a filtering mechanism at work. I don't see that anywhere.

DJ, I understand what you say about the alternative. But you can't solely bang the drums against the alternative, either. You have to state what you bring to the table.

Nothing much to add except to say this is a great thread to read. Thanks DJ. And Mantis, by your last post I can only assume you want the Republicans held to a higher ideal than the Democrats. Am I clear on that? At least you feel the Republicans (conservatives) have ideals to betray. I think you don't believe even this about the liberals.

Mantis cites: "I see, Mantis. so, people who will vote for your candidate if he persuades them but whose candidate you reject because he is not a ..."

Small point, but there must be a filtering mechanism at work. I don't see that anywhere.

DJ deleted the first part of his comment, for some reason. I quoted the entirety of what he deleted.

BTW, McCain has done 180 degree on a lot of stuff. Again one major problem with McCain is that he went out of his way to insult the conservative base while currying favor with the liberals and MSM. Look at how he cozied up with Hillary while attacking Romney with spin (ie lies). He attacked his fellow Reps, who agreed with him on the war, more ferociously than the liberals, who disagreed with him 100%. Mantis cannot be honest enough to bring these up as usual.

Brad,

Mantis, you are aware that the "anti-conservative" Bush did win TWO terms, right? And you are aware that anything more than one term (with the possible exception of LBJ) as president implies that Bush was a somewhat successful president, right?

Well, the idiot Democrats ran John Kerry, who's just as bad as Romney on the other side. In any case my measure of success is somewhat different than reelection against a total buffoon.

DaveD,

You don't seem clear on much at all.

In fact, Mantis, let me use a Boston sports metaphor to describe the situation to you:

Jeb Bush is not walking through that door!
Ronald Reagan is not walking through that door!
Arnold Schwarzenegger is not walking through that door!

You sell the country on what you have, and what you bring to the table. You don't sell the country on who's the most perfect conservative, no matter what Rush tells you.

(BTW, those of you who recognized Rick Pitino's little rant while coaching the Boston Celtics, take a bow!).

Well, the idiot Democrats ran John Kerry, who's just as bad as Romney on the other side.
-------------------------------------
This is just another dishonest spin as usual. Romney was the governor of Mass. He turned around the failing Olympics. Ran a successful business. John Kerry 's accomplishment is being married to a rich woman. Again, Mantis is not honest enough to see the difference.

So if it comes down to McCain vs Clinton or Obama what choice do conservatives have?

Some argue that conservatives should vote for McCain because of Supreme court nominations. The problem with that argument is that no one knows what type of judges McCain would nominate. Even if he picks someone with a seemingly conservative record, that doesn't mean they stay conservative once appointed, as we have seen with some of Reagan's appointments.

What about the war in Iraq? In a year's time it should be mostly resolved with reasonable stability and many of our troops withdrawn. If not, we gave it our best shot and we probable should leave anyway. Not even Clinton or Obama will rush to disassemble our shrinking involvement if it has been and is still working a year from now.

Global warming: McCain is just as clueless on this issue as Clinton and Obama.

The Economy: McCain is just as clueless on this issue as Clinton and Obama.

If we have to have a liberal president I would rather have one who wears the label. I figure the fastest way for conservatives to regain power is to let liberals have a go at it.

While McCain is not my first choice, I will vote FOR him because I trust he will do a better job selecting supreme court jurists and fighting the war on terrorism than Obama or Clinton. If the democrats had put forward someone who would have done a better job in those areas, then I would hold my nose and vote for them.

The fact that I can't say that McCain won't be for everything I think is important is true about every candidate who I have ever voted for. The fact that you can't vote FOR every aspect of every candidate is simple reality. I didn't like voting FOR Reagan given his divorce. But I could look at the whole candidate and conclude he was the better person to run the country than Carter (I admit that wasn't a hard decision to make).

Likewise, look at the whole candidate (McCain, Obama, Clinton, Romney, Huckabee) who gets both parties nomination. Who is going to be the best candidate for the country. Not who is going to be the one I agree with 100%.

Get a grip on reality and don't act like a liberal who wants a utopia because they don't like the reality presented to them this year.

If you think the GOP is losing its way, then start working now for 2012/2016. But don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Sorry for the confusion, Brad. When i realized Mantis was not a Republican but just another hater of the Republicans, I deleted my first section from the comment to make it relevant to him. Where Mantis is concerned, 'spite' is really all one needs to note.

"Republican primary is a battle of ideas now. Only the ignorant and dishonest would not see that. The rest of your stuff is the usual cheap spin that has been dealt with before."

Is it ignorant or dishonest that intellectual and media conservatives have different priorities than the base this year? Is it ignorant or dishonest to mention that the bloggers and talk radio hosts are using the "ideas" to beat the base senseless, against the base's own interests?

If you can determine who I'm "supporting" based upon those comments, go get 'em!